Also read these - click on the links:
The Cyber Narcissist
http://samvak.tripod.com/journal67.html
Transformations of Aggression
http://samvak.tripod.com/aggression.html
=======================================
Don’t flame me, bro’
Recently there has been a sharp increase in the amount of abusive language
on the New Scientist website. No, it’s not because our writers have become
degenerates, it’s because we rolled out a new commenting facility on all
articles, giving people the chance to share their thoughts and opinions
across the site.
I am particularly conscious of this trend because, as the moderator, I keep
an eye on all comments and have to remove any that break our House Rules.
This means I read a lot of comments (826 last week) and while most of them
are perfectly polite, there’s a stubborn minority that are rude,
intentionally provocative, or just plain abusive. It seems people will say
things online that they would never say face-to-face.
My pet theory about why people behave so rudely is that online commenting is
treated, by most people, like a pub conversation – they don’t necessarily
expect to be taken seriously and the social rules are fairly relaxed. And
yet, because comments appear in cold text without important cues like
friendly body language, they can easily seem more offensive than if they
would otherwise. As a result some people get annoyed, and the flaming and
trolling begin.
After being described a few weeks ago as “a self-lobotomised liberal who
can’t face the facts”, I decided to look into the psychology of online
behaviour a bit further. Much of the research on online communication has
looked at email, but it seems that many of the results can be generalised to
apply to chat rooms and forums too.
Social psychologists have known for decades that, if we reduce our sense of
our own identity – a process called deindividuation – we are less likely to
stick to social norms. For example, in the 1960s Leon Mann studied a nasty
phenomenon called “suicide baiting” – when someone threatening to jump from
a high building is encouraged to do so by bystanders. Mann found that people
were more likely to do this if they were part of a large crowd, if the
jumper was above the 7th floor, and if it was dark. These are all factors
that allowed the observers to lose their own individuality.
Social psychologist Nicholas Epley argues that much the same thing happens
with online communication such as email. Psychologically, we are “distant”
from the person we’re talking to and less focused on our own identity. As a
result we’re more prone to aggressive behaviour, he says.
Another factor influencing online communication, according to Epley, is
simply the risk of miscommunication involved with text-based messages, which
are inherently more ambiguous. At the same time, he notes, email “has the
feel of informality – we just fire something off”, even though we probably
ought to treat it with the same care as a written letter. And, as most
people probably know, this can cause problems for both the sender and the
receiver.
Epley explains further: “If I send a joke in an email, it’ll be ambiguous
when it gets to you. That’s hard for me to detect: the joke is funny, and I
use that knowledge to judge how you’ll interpret it.” But the receiver may
not realise that the email is meant as a joke – particularly if they are in
a bad mood to start with – and that can lead to horrified responses like “I
can’t believe you just said that” and to an unnecessary argument.
In 2005, Epley showed that people can vastly overestimate their ability to
communicate unambiguously by email. He suggests that we find it hard to take
another person’s perspective when communicating electronically. Similarly, a
forthcoming study by Kristin Byron found that people tend to interpret
emails more negatively than other forms of communication (Academy of
Management Review, volume 33, issue 2), making them even more likely to
respond aggressively.
Another obvious factor is that, if you insult someone online, it’s unlikely
you’ll face any physical retaliation for it. Epley compares the resulting
psychological distance to being isolated inside a car – another situation
that seems to make people more prone to abusiveness.
I’m not sure what we can do to minimise miscommunication and abuse online.
But being aware that we’re not as good at communication online as we’d like
to think seems like a good start. I know I often have to restrain myself
from joining in.
Michael Marshall, online editorial assistant
Labels: brain, interaction, internet, psychology, web 2.0
Posted by Michael at 4:24 PM
Permalink
del.icio.us
digg this
Comments:
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a
particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the
comment in question.
Michael Marshall needs to take his neo-nazi propaganda elsewhere. He wreaks
of ignorance on this topic. Hatred and violence toward sub-humans such as
Michael Marshall are the only solution to spreading this false doctrine!
just kidding.
The topic on suicide baiting was more interesting… newscientist should
expand on this.
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 6:25 PM
I’m guilty of posting a few flames here, I think.
I’ve posted one or two harsh comments in situations where the headline and
discussion in the article was so dominated by sensationalist speculation,
and so lacking a picture of the on-the-ground scientific reality, that I
felt that the article just needed to be denounced.
Actually, this problem affects many NewsSientist writings, some more some
less, and in the end it leaves the public with an unscientific understanding
of the scientific situation. I think this is a disservice.
Is there any possibility of turning this around?
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 6:31 PM
The fact that a website with objectively reported scientific articles is
getting rude comments or being “flamed” with greater frequency may be part
of a wider trend. At least in the U.S. I see a gradual but inexorable
cultural movement towards a fundamentalist religious preoccupation. The
fundamentalist Christian perspectrive on science is often not favorable.
Such a movement is not without prescedent in the U.S. throughout its
history. I think it is a shame since the movement to a predominantly more
secular religious stance favorable to scientific development is part of what
made the U.S. a dominant superpower over the past century or more. I can’t
say for sure if this applies to other nations.
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 6:58 PM
So we just met a flamer, and a troll in the first 3 comments! I love an
article that lets other people post the proof 
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 7:16 PM
It’s not just religious; many people are “not religious” but lacking the
scientific training necessary in particular to realise that a scientific
study and personal opinion are very different things, leading to dogmatic
assertions without substantiation being thrown at scientists. Please don’t
get me wrong - I’m not saying that science is immune to this itself. But the
amount of times I’ve heard someone say “that’s just some scientist’s
opinion, I’ve just as much right to mine”… I think a lot of it is to do
with a failure to realise that one can have ones own opinions but not ones
own facts (I forget who said that). Also I think any move towards
fundamentalism has a lot to do with a need for security and so that’s going
to lead to trolling and flames when someone has the temerity to say
something that others see as being in conflict with their world view.
Also see Penny Arcade’s strip on the “Greater Internet F***wad Theory”
(apologies for the name). That seems to sum it up pretty well!
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 7:18 PM
Anonymity is what makes the web both wonderful and dangerous at the same
time.
Anonymity allows freedom of speech to those who’s human rights are normally
controlled.
On another level we are also control by the rules of socially acceptable
behaviour which unfortunately is also escaped by anonymity. Social systems
have evolved to allow us to ‘all get along’ by damping emotional or
irrational behaviour, there are unwritten rules that when acting anonymously
one is left to adhere to at one’s own discretion.
Social acceptance should not be treated as oppression to escaped, but
instead as courtesy.
It is interesting how hatred breeds hatred. It seems to create a feedback
loop that takes a long time to die off.
Sincerly,
Signed,
Anonymous
By Damon on November 19, 2007 7:35 PM
i mod a p2p site and we’ve always had trolls. perhaps 5 percent of the
members are regularly vicious in thier comments. this has been occuring
since 1999.
i’m not sure of the cause but i’m fairly certain these posters have serious
personal issues offline as well.
i’m not much of a beliver in a voodoo internet that turns mild mannered,
well reasoned individuals into monsters.
By JackSpratts on November 19, 2007 7:44 PM
I’ve been a professional troll and hater for like 10 years. My favorite is
on halo microphone, victims can hear the tone of my hate too. I never knew
why I was like this, but now I do. Thanks!
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 7:53 PM
So we just met a flamer, and a troll in the first 3 comments! I love an
article that lets other people post the proof
Not to mention we got Goodwin’s Law out of the way on the first…
Guess this article is built in flamebait
By Jason on November 19, 2007 8:03 PM
One thing that can help - a lot - is use of contextual clues such as
emoticons etc to help fill in the tone that’s missing in textual
conversation. Consider “hey :)” versus “hey >:(” and the immediate
difference in meaning one can generally take away from the two examples.
More context = less misunderstanding.
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 8:09 PM
One other piece of the puzzle: “Last word syndrome”.
In a FTF conversation, there is a lot of rapid give-and-take. Even if I am
disagreeing with someone, there is a sense that we have to agree to
communicate in some sort of alternation. No one really gets the last word.
Online, it’s too easy to think “Aha, I can shoot that idiot’s argument
down with a comprehensive proof of his fallacies. And thus I will have the
last word”.
Except I don’t, because the presumed idiot can and will often respond in
exactly the same mind set.
The more this goes on, the more it inflames (pun intended) the subject’s
behaviour elsewhere. Even in a different context, they may be carrying the
same “chip” and immediately inject that energy into a new conversation.
Charles Roth
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 8:16 PM
Often times what happens is that the site eBaumsworld finds out about a
random site and they’ll start trolling and starting unnecessary flame wars
just to annoy the site admins. They really are just total jerks over there.
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 8:24 PM
I used to be taught that people have two ears and only one mouth, so that we
should all listen more often that we talk.
The problem with email and chat rooms is that those writing have ten
fingers, but only one brain.
By Barry Haworth on November 19, 2007 8:26 PM
I think the increased abusiveness, in the nature of the comments, you are
receiving, is just a result of the internet becoming less elitist. Access to
the internet is becoming much more affordable so that ordinary people, like
me, can surf the internet for the first time. You leave your comments
section open to all comers, so what are you expecting!
Perhaps, the pub is one of the few places where you actually get to meet
people of different social backgrounds. Surely you must realise that many,
many people, maybe the majority, do swear and act aggressively to each other
on a regular basis, at work and at home, this isn’t even anything new.
Obviously, in your world, hierarchies are justly defined and strictly
enforced but this is not the case for everyone. Unfortunately, few people
are given that security and respect in their everyday lives. And, I would
say you actually receive less abusiveness from people because of the lack of
feedback, in the form of social cues, you get from posting a comment in
writing. Where is the reward in acting aggressively when the recipient of
the aggression does not flinch or cower straight after you raise your voice
and start criticising them aggressively? Where is the reward in intimidating
someone when you are almost completely anonymous, accept for an IP address?
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 8:34 PM
It’s not the fact that we (the people) are flaming you, it’s the fact that
you need to write better blogs. There is no doubt that the reason we flame
you is that either we
don’t like the fact you are posting these random ass blogs or it could be
that we don’t like you.
Pools closed bitches
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 8:40 PM
on comment #3, “I think it is a shame since the movement to a predominantly
more secular religious stance favorable to scientific development is part of
what made the U.S. a dominant superpower over the past century or more.”
Actually, I think it was more our ability to exploit other nations and push
them further into the third world as we became more first world. But
scientists are always known for knowing nothing about the greater political
and sociological issues in the world around them.
By Montoya on November 19, 2007 8:48 PM
Simple. Remove the comment feature and the flamers will go away and others
who are interested in what you have to say will continue to read.
By David on November 19, 2007 8:57 PM
Maybe, I am being very naive here. But, is this Michael Marshall dropping a
subtle hint to his employers to end the open door policy on comments because
reading comments is taking up too much of his valuable time?
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 9:19 PM
People are just getting used to the ever increasing informality of posting
and emailing and commenting. Smileys are very important but I think it’s
more important that people take a more laid back attitude towards posts. As
said, there is no fear of a physical response to hold the flamers back. But
the same goes for the people offended. Why would you let a complete stranger
offend you, when you could also read the message as a joke or sarcasm. It’s
just a switch you should pull when reading anything on the internet really.
By tim on November 19, 2007 9:53 PM
I suggest anonymity cuts both ways. People, realizing they are anonymous and
distant will let their true feelings and opinions flow. And, unfortunately,
some of those comments are moronic.
Which is to say… the anonymous internet allows some people to let their
inner anger flow… for others it simply frees their inner moron.
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 9:59 PM
Internet toughguys show off their “skills” in the arena known as “4chan”.
The horrors…
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 10:59 PM
Some of us are far too polite to flame. Excuse me, I’m Canadian.
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 11:40 PM
It’s a simple answer, really. It’s about accountability. Anonymity removes
accountability. Anonymous comments are always lower-brow than email, which
is always lower-brow than face-to-face.
Road rage is another example of loss of accountability leading to doing and
saying things you would otherwise not, if you knew you would be held
accountable to those actions.
I really doubt it’s rocket science.
But, there’s a new technology about to be released that will solve this
problem. Watch for it in January.
By Anonymous on November 19, 2007 11:53 PM
I think you miss the point. Flaming and trolling and etc. are rhetorical
tools, just as sarcasm, condescencion, irony, humor and smiley faces are
tools to be used in a forum.
Whining about the other guy’s choice of tools is yet another open forum
tool: pity and self-pity. It is an attempt to build consensus and rally the
troops to battle. Increase the noise and the signal is lost, which is the
point.
What we really need is for schools to teach rhetoric so that we can elevate
the quality of the tool selection.
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 12:31 AM
Two observations.
(1) ‘Also see Penny Arcade’s strip on the “Greater Internet F***wad Theory”
(apologies for the name). That seems to sum it up pretty well!’
– The name of the theory alone constitutes a huge leap in our understanding
of the roughly half of all people who disagree with me politically. Now THAT
is a great theory!
(2) “in the end it leaves the public with an unscientific understanding of
the scientific situation. I think this is a disservice. Is there any
possibility of turning this around?”
– Based on the quality of thought I see demonstrated (including humorous
comments) I’d say the readers here are not your average Fox News believers.
New Scientist readers seem able to think critically. What are you worried
about? If they’re reporting on people who disagree with you, that’s easy.
(See my item #1.)
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 12:33 AM
It is fun to say something outrageous that is bound to make people flip
their wigs, and have a laugh. That is why we troll. If someone gets mad and
goes off, you have been trolled, you have lost. Have a nice day!
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 1:30 AM
I think this is a fascinating social phenomenon, akin to crowd/mob mentality
and a variant of mass hysteria.
It’s interesting to note the difference in behaviour between purely
anonymous commenting systems, and feedback-oriented systems as on eBay or
Slashdot. Both the existence and the nature of the feedback is seemingly
significant.
A related (I think) phenomenon is griefers on internet forums. This seems
less to do with strict anonymity, and more to do with a form of internet
elitism. In fact, in my experience the emergence of griefers tends to happen
more in quasi-anonymous forums and not in completely anonymous forums, which
seem to be the domain of trolls and flamers.
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 1:57 AM
I’m surprised the author of this post was unfamiliar with the extensive
academic literature on flaming.
Turnage (2007) for instance attempts to construct a testing scale on which
to analyse what a “flame” might be.
Beyond the limited scope of the reference material the narrow field of view
is also unfortunate. Literature on communication meaning and the impact of
non-verbal behaviour is not just the province of psychology, linguistics
anthropology and even sociology have fruitful programs of study that have
implications for this form of study. How people react to flaming is
something that people in the field of pragmatics, and discourse analysis
have effectively probe, without any of the positivism normally associated
with approaches such as Mann’s.
I do certainly appreciate the interesting phenomenon under study here, I
just hope to highlight how many areas of study are in fact compatible to
this form of analysis.
Turnage, A. K. (2007). Email flaming behaviors and organizational conflict.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 3.
By Twilight on November 20, 2007 2:12 AM
Actually, the reason so many people are so mean to each other on the
internet, is because the other person can’t reach through the screen and
punch them in the nose for being a jerk.
Fix that problem, and people will be a lot nicer to each other.
By Alexsandyr Troutnoodler on November 20, 2007 4:15 AM
Age. Thats the problem.
The majority of ‘troll/hate/flame’ posts that come through on many forums
are because of the age of the posters.
Solution: Keep anyone under the age of 25 from posting on your forums.
(Flame wars can still occur but they are usually subject related not
personal).
By Aaron on November 20, 2007 5:52 AM
just add LOBBYING in the list of reasons
for the growth of insults on forums and
blogs, that’s my personal experience (as
writer of, often “disliked”, arguments on
my blog ghostNASA.com and my website
gaetanomarano.it) talking about Space
on several Space forums and blogs… 
.
just TRY to write articles or posts with
CRITICS about Space companies and/or
space agencies’ choices… then, you will
(IMMEDIATELY) receive LOTS of insults
from users that (hidden by their strange
nicknames) run that kind of forums and
blogs ONLY to support the business and
the policies of the companies they work
for, and write against ALL the blog/forum
users that have different opinions (after
all, the money involved in that business,
is in the range of SEVERAL Billion$$$…)
.
if the insults are not enough to stop you
other serious censorships could happen
like was last september with ghostNASA
after posting “too much” protests about
the “bad events” explained in this article:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 7:22 AM
It’s kinda funny that people like George Carlin make a fortune bitching
about how f’ing stupid people are, yet you cry about people writing angry
emails or posts. I for one greatly appreciate peoples expression of anger
and rage in emails and blogs. American society is becoming WAY WAY WAYYYYYY
too polite and pussified. America is the land of the politically correct and
sissified. Ohhh, don’t say anything that offends women, gays, minorities,
etc or you’ll have the likes of media hounds and mega hypocrits Jesse
Jackson and that other moron. This society f’ing sucks, and it’s politeness
that is ruining it.
Get some f’ing balls and express your anger you sissys.
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 7:47 AM
This is why people should use more emoticons. Sure its only a little icon,
but you can show your personal state to other people so they will recognize
your feelings at the moment you write something.
I use it even in business emails…
By zyx on November 20, 2007 8:47 AM
“Based on the quality of thought I see demonstrated (including humorous
comments) I’d say the readers here are not your average Fox News believers.
New Scientist readers seem able to think critically.”
The trolling of smug people who have still potential for mental developement
seems to be a bigger problem than flaming.
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 8:54 AM
Might I suggest an experiment? Presumably your system logs the poster’s IP
address.
As well as automating abuse flags (several posts in a row is a good one)
manual flagging should be applied to the messages.
Now, do not remove abusive messages. Make them visible if they are ok or
they come from the current IP address. The result - abusers can see their
comments but others cannot.
Now watch what happens when, however hard they try, they are ignored.
I had a lot of fun with this one!
By Mike on November 20, 2007 9:05 AM
RE: Comment #3. A clarification. It is amusing in retrospect that in a way
my comment was somewhat inflammatory. Perhaps I was in a bad mood or under
influenced tacitly by the title of the article. The was simply offering
sympathy to the blogger while tying in a lament about what I see as an
eroding of respect from the lay public and funding from the U.S. gov’t with
regard to the sciences and those who practice them over the last 40 years or
so. While at the same time the fundamentalist Christain movements are
gaining in popularity in the mainstream along with doctrines such as
Intelligent Design and Creationism. Fundamentalist Christian views are at
root of the fundation of the U.S., an example beign the Puritans.
Fortunately the founders of the constitution wisely sought to separate
religious from secular matters with regards to state affairs and education.
Now it is not only a matter of opinions versus facts but religious beliefs
versus facts. These trends to not bode well for the future of the U.S. as a
continuing technological leader when nations such as the E.U., India, and
China are rapidly progressing in the basic sciennces and arguably ahead of
the U.S. now in some areas. With regards to how the U.S. became a superpower
I was referring to how it established military supremacy ie WW2.
I agree that anonymity is a double edged sword. You will get more honest
opinions and varied opinions, but a breakdown in organization from the
intended subject, which can result in chaos and disorganization. To maintain
sanity, the blogger may have to impose and enforce rules.
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 10:28 AM
Mike has the solution right there - three different forums I’ve done this
too, and three times it was a resounding success. It’s nothing more than
attention-seeking behaviour.
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 11:10 AM
Just eliminate the ability for people to be anonymous in thier leaving of
comments, make sure they register and obtain an identity.
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 1:32 PM
I’ve always enjoyed a good spot of trollery now and again. Conversely, I
also enjoy the occasional bit of counter-trollery as well. If I happen upon
some sanctimonious piffle dishing out the old rubbish, I give’em what-for
with a cherry on top. But if a fella’s being hysterical, I turn all
super-reasonable to make sure he appreciates that he’s an incoherent,
overemotional effeminatus who needs a straitjacket. Tehehe
By BennyBooBoo on November 20, 2007 1:36 PM
as a troll can i first point out you sir are a noob. The great thing about
the internet is it’s all lies and propaganda, even new scientist prints
nonsense pseudoscience to propagate it’s liberal doctrine. The reason people
troll and flame is because freed from the social constraints of normalized
life we can express our true feeling, which means we can cut through the
bland ‘don’t mention the war’ socialcontrol imposed on us and reach the
truth quicker.
Ok well not quite the truth but a fuller ‘grocking’ of the situation. I take
it you know how to use wikipedia properly? first you read the article then
head over to the talk page to find what the wikinazis have deemed not worthy
of the finished article - this quickly fills you in on the conventional
wisdom of the event and gives you some idea of the issues surrounding it.
The Guardians talk pages are especially good example of this -see the
comments of any story about the middle east and you’ll find the bare bones
of the issues laid bare as everyone with an vague knowledge or interest in
the events battles to the death. Mrs so and so from Israel argues with Mr
whoever from New York and a few dozen random view points skirmish round the
edges, in this we can learn what people think of each other, how the see the
issues, what angle do they come from, etc, etc.
To you Trolling might be the decline of civilization but boring stuck in the
past establishment types think that about everything good which has ever
happened. Either get with the program and reevaluate your understanding of
communication or GTFO my internets kthx lol.
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 1:39 PM
this is copypasta from ebaums world - this is their INTERNET TERRORIST
TRAINING MANUAL- this isn’t a real news board at all but a trolling station,
its where we practice trolling -sharpen our claws before in mock battles
before heading out the the epic battlefields of youtube comments!
most of the exstream views you hear are infact someone (often me) trolling,
the game is say the most absurd and insane thing then defend your point
using logical fallacy, retarded argumentation and made up statistics. For
major points you can make up an entire news article (or edit an existing
one) and post it, lulz ensure! (oh and don’t worry no one ever checks the
validity of sources it’s sort of a gentleman’s agreement we have)
so welcome to EBAUMS WORLD, strap on those dueling pistols and get ready to
fight.
[the conclusion of this comment has been edited to remove some obscene
language. Yes, we realise it was meant as a joke, but rules are rules]
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 2:09 PM
I would be happy simply if your posters could spell properly. These juvenile
or ill-informed attacks are readily recognised for what they are.
By Paul on November 20, 2007 2:38 PM
This is the internet. The last bastion of democracy. Like all things, you
take the good with the bad and it’s worth it. If you haven’t already, I
suggest you deal with it.
Because only on the internet can skinny nerds, hellbound athiests, and
Anti-Chinese Communist Party citizens can voice their opinions without
retaliation. If it contains a lot of profanity, then so be it. The profanity
is justified.
To finish this comment, allow me to offer you a protip that may enlighten
you on why some people choose to abuse and troll others online: Because it’s
funny.
Internet: You’re an idiot if you take everything seriously.
You’re a New Scientist staff for god- I mean, science’s sake. You should
know better.
By †Invisible Sky Magician†on November 20, 2007 2:38 PM
No one’s ever heard of the Monkeysphere? Since none of you are in mine,
you’re all a bunch of sh**tcamels to me!
By Jared on November 20, 2007 3:10 PM
listen paul put your dictionary forcibly up your anus and GTFO - if you can
understand a post thats good enough, this aint no high minded bookclub or
national news paper its the interwebs and i dont have time to check my
spelling or any of that nonsence its really not that important if it hurts
your brain to communicate in a more freeform way then screw you mister
because grammer is dead baby - VIVA LA INTERNETS lol
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 3:13 PM
I think you are completely correct. After playing games online for about 10
years any comment can be preceived as offensive. Even in cases where the
comment is to just be funny the audience is so broad in an open forum that
it is nearly impossible to not offend.
The single offender then sees a chance to retalliatle whereas in a public
face to face setting they typically would not. Mood is also another problem
where one person having a bad day can cause drama for all.
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 3:32 PM
Go once dead,m MoFo.
Greets Wim Heitinga
By Anonymous on November 20, 2007 3:34 PM
Thanks for all your comments! A few responses:
Thanks to Twilight who pointed out the Turnage reference discussing
flaming - I’ll be delving into that and will hopefully write some more on it
in the future.
To Anonymous who wonders if this article was me pitching to remove the “open
door policy” on comments - no it wasn’t. I just got interested.
Can you explain why my immediate desire was to call you all sorts of names
(“a self-lobotomised liberal who can’t face the facts” was a good one)
and then say “Just kidding, great article”?